Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Bill

Debate between Geoffrey Cox and Kit Malthouse

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th April 2024 Public Bill Committees

[Sir Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Latham. I should make a declaration of interest: I own land on which livestock is kept.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal on doing an enormous service for livestock farming and those engaged in it not only through this valuable Bill but during her service as Secretary of State. Throughout her time in office, she took valuable steps towards enhancing the livelihoods of those whom I represent in my constituency. Her work is being carried on by the current Secretary of State.

I shall address just one or two elements of the Bill not in a critical spirit but in, I hope, a constructive one. I hope we can give some subsequent attention to my first concern about the Bill—the Minister may be able to help me by answering some of my questions or by reflecting on changes that could be introduced in subsequent stages—which is that at the moment several pieces of legislation could apply to the mischief at which this Bill is aimed. We have the Dogs (Protection of Livestock) Act 1953, which this measure amends, but we also have the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991. Section 3 of the 1991 Act makes it an offence to be the owner of a dog that is dangerously out of control, and the guidelines that the Crown Prosecution Service published on that offence suggest that a dog that is causing serious injury to other animals, including livestock, is potentially evincing evidence of being dangerously out of control.

We have, then, the offence in section 3 and the offences under the 1953 Act. What we do not have is coherence in the guidelines for prosecution and enforcement between when the Dangerous Dogs Act can be used and when the offence is of attacks on, or worrying, livestock. Having served as a Law Officer, I think there may well be a case for the re-publication of new guidelines on enforcement and prosecution, but the reason why I draw attention to the matter is that, even with the changes that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal is introducing to the penalty provisions, it seems to me that they are extraordinarily light for the top end of this type of offending. An offence with a £1,000 maximum fine will generally be visited not with the maximum by a magistrates court but by a fine potentially of just a few hundred pounds—in other words, the cost of perhaps a few parking tickets—yet the impact, suffering and mischief that attacks by dogs on livestock cause to farmers and farming families are severe, and wholly out of proportion to a fine of a few hundred pounds.

My right hon. Friend will know—because I have discussed it with her—that just a few weeks ago the Dawe family, who are neighbours and constituents of mine, were subjected to an extraordinary overnight attack in which no fewer than 27 lambing ewes and lambs were killed—their faces ripped off and their bellies torn open. Many of them had to be put down when, in the morning light, that appalling scene of carnage was discovered. The irresponsibility of an owner who allows their dogs to roam free and to cause damage of that appalling character is not reflected by a fine of a few hundred pounds. Now, you may say to me, Mrs Latham, that perhaps in those circumstances an offence under section 3 of the Dangerous Dogs Act should be considered, and I would agree, but what we need is a coherent set of guidelines that sets out when the various offences in the hierarchy that exists should be considered by both police and the Crown Prosecution Service.

The second point that I wish to make is an allied point. It is astonishing that neither the Dangerous Dogs Act nor, certainly, the 1953 Act permits the court to disqualify an owner from owning a dog. I strongly submit to the Minister, for future consideration, perhaps in this Bill, that this offence ought to be added to section 34 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which lists the offences that gives to a court the power to disqualify a person from dog ownership. It may be that there is a lacuna, and under the Dangerous Dogs Act the normal remedy in those circumstances would be the destruction of the animal, but if the court decides that the animal should not be destroyed, surely some attention should be given to whether an owner with a dog so dangerously out of control—or even a dog that worries livestock, whether once or repeatedly—should not be allowed to own a dog until further order.

The two points that I recommend to the Minister, then—it may be that those assisting him can say that my fairly preliminary inspection of the laws in this field is wrong, and I can be reassured—are twofold. First, we need coherent guidance as to the way police investigate and prosecution prosecute, as to the balance to be struck and the considerations to be thought through, and as to the application of either a section 3 Dangerous Dogs Act offence or an offence of worrying sheep or attacking livestock, of the kind my right hon. Friend is dealing with. Secondly, we need to consider whether the offences, even those she is amending, are sufficient for this purpose. A repeat offender will be fined under level 5. That is an unlimited fine and that is good, but the repeated worrying of sheep or worrying of any livestock is not, many would say, sufficiently visited with adequate punishment by a fine alone. I commend that approach to the Minister, and if I am wrong about that or the policy of the Government is not to adopt it, we need at least to consider when section 3 should be used.

Finally, we need to consider the question of disqualification and whether or not this offence should be added to the list of offences under the Animal Welfare Act that make an owner eligible for disqualification. The court, of course, would have discretion; all the usual balancing factors that are relevant under that Act would apply. Where there is a fairly minor case of worrying, one would not expect a disqualification, but in a really grave case—such as that of the Dawe family, whom I have the privilege of representing—a court may take a thoroughly different view.

With that—I say again that this is meant not in a critical spirit but in a constructive one—I congratulate my right hon. Friend again. This is an extraordinarily valuable set of provisions that has been widely welcomed and I hope that we can consider tightening them further in the Bill’s journey through the House.

[Kit Malthouse (North West Hampshire) (Con)]

Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon, I am pleased to appear under your wise guidance, Mrs Latham, as we look at this vital and important legislation. I represent 200 square miles of rolling Hampshire downland, much of it dotted with sheep. Like my right hon. and learned Friend, we have seen our share of horrible incidents over the past few years; the legislation is therefore extremely welcome for me and my constituents—and I declare an interest as a dog owner.

I, too, have some small matters of detail that I want to raise for possible consideration on Report, in the spirit of trying constructively to improve the Bill. I will go through them, if I may. The first is about territorial extent. I am not as legally proficient as my right hon. and learned Friend, but I want to ensure that areas of Crown land are covered, not least royal parks, which often have their own legislation to cover what happens within them. Members will remember the famous case of Fenton chasing deer across Richmond Park—happily, in that case there was a prosecution and a conditional discharge for six months. We need to look at that. In particular, we need to think about the foreshore. There are parts of this country where sheep graze the foreshore, eating seaweed and whatever. It produces delightful slightly salty and sweet lamb, but the foreshore is a part of our landmass that has its own legal status and largely, I think I am right in saying, belongs to the Crown. It would be interesting to see how we can make sure that the legislation applies there.

The second issue that I want to raise is the retention of dogs by the police. When I was at City Hall, in a previous life, I started a campaign to drive out the plethora of dangerous dogs in London and improve the legislation. We got amendments then, but one thing that deterred the police from detaining dangerous dogs was the cost of holding them. Often, a dog would be detained, the trial would be awaited, the dog would be held—sometimes for months—the owner would not show up to the trial and the dog would be destroyed, but the police would be left with the cost. I understand that in this case there is a seven-day limit and I wonder whether we could consider that for amendment on Report.

In my honest opinion, owners will partially pay. They will get to seven days, plead that they cannot afford it and partially pay some of the costs to try to avoid their dog being put down. A game will be played. There needs to be firmer provision: either that, at seven days, partial payment is not good enough and the constable may dispose of the dog, or that an owner can agree immediately upon seizure of the dog that the dog may be disposed of. At the moment I cannot see in the Bill the possibility that, if my dog kills 27 sheep and is seized, I can say to the police there and then, “I don’t want the dog back. Do what you will with it,” at no cost to me.